Opinions clash on water heater relief valve
Q: We just bought a new-build home and had it professionally inspected, just to play it safe. One problem in the home inspector's report involves the water heater relief valve. The report said the overflow pipe from the relief valve should extend to the outside of the building, rather than to the garage floor. We checked with the local building department and were told that the water heater is correctly installed, that the overflow pipe complies with the intent of the plumbing code. With two conflicting opinions, how do we decide who is right?
A: Building codes are often the subject of interpretation, controversy and debate among professional inspectors and building officials. In some cases, codes are written in ambiguous terms, preventing a definite determination from being made. In this case, however, the code verbiage is clear and concise, leaving little room for uncertainty.
According to the Uniform Plumbing Code, a water heater shall be equipped with a pressure temperature relief valve. The purpose of this valve is to prevent the water heater from exploding in the event of an overheated tank. It is further required that the relief valve be connected to an overflow pipe so that steam and hot water can be directed to a safe location where bystanders are not likely to be scalded.
In 1988, a new provision was added to this code, requiring the overflow pipe to be terminated at the exterior of the building. Prior to this code change, it was permissible for an overflow pipe to terminate at the interior of a garage or dwelling. The purpose of this code change was to prevent water damage to the interior of the building and to personal property.
When disagreements arise regarding interpretations of various building codes, a reliable rule of thumb is to ask, “What is the intent of the code?” From this perspective, it is often quite simple to render a reasonable interpretation. In this case, the intent is to prevent interior water damage. If a building inspector contends that an interior overflow pipe is in keeping with that intent, common sense would suggest otherwise. Accordingly, the overflow pipe should terminate at the exterior of the building.
Q: The home I just purchased has a hollow-core front entry door, and there are no other exit doors anywhere in the building. I thought that front doors are supposed to be solid-core and that a back door is also required. Do these conditions sound like building code violations?
A: A single family dwelling is required to have one exterior door only, with a minimum width of 36 inches. Additional doors are only required if the home is designed for occupancy by 10 or more people. If your home is intended for normal occupancy, then no back door is specified by code.
There is also no legal mandate for a solid-core entry door on your home. Solid doors have become standard issue for most homes, to provide added security against forced entry, but this is not a compulsory building standard.
• Distributed by Action Coast Publishing. Questions to Barry Stone can be emailed to barry@housedetective.com.